Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: a hybrid Hypothesis with oral Q?

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    BRIAN ... JEFF ... STEVE On crosstalk we ve managed to solve this terminological problem by speaking of NMM as material in Mt that is not in Mark and leaving Q
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 8, 1998
      BRIAN
      > >Some contributors to this list have defined Q as the non-Markan material
      > >common to Matthew and Luke irrespective of its source. If Q is so
      > >defined, and if, on the Farrer Hypothesis, Matthew interacted with oral
      > >tradition in order to produce the double tradition in his gospel, on the
      > >same hypothesis must not the oral tradition with which Matthew
      > >interacted have included Q ? How could it not have done so?

      JEFF
      > The issue here is in part semantic and concerns what we mean by "Q." Q is
      > used both to designate a source hypothesized to account for matter shared
      > by Matthew and Luke and lacking in Mark on the assumption of Marcan
      > priority and to identify the Synoptic material thus accounted for. One
      > simply needs to be clear in which sense the abbreviation is being used; I
      > suppose that if Q is an abbreviation for Quelle, its proper use is limited
      > to 2ST adherents, but given its majority status (which means that all
      > discussion of the Synoptic problem of necessity involves dialogue with
      > 2ST), other source theorists continue using it as convenient shorthand for
      > what Matthew and Luke share that isn't paralleled in Mark

      STEVE
      On crosstalk we've managed to solve this terminological problem by
      speaking of NMM as material in Mt that is not in Mark and leaving
      Q to be material in Mt and Lk that is not in Mark. (NonMarkanMatthew)

      Mark G is entirely right that if Mt ---> Lk was known to be a fact
      nobody would think that Lk also was using Q. But then "where did
      NMM come from?" would become a very significant question.
      I've argued that NMM scholarship would end up drawing most of
      the same conclusions as Q scholarship does vis a vis early
      Christianity.

      Steve
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      ... Mark, Alfred Loisy also accepted this version of events, of course. ... As other posters already remarked, this seems to be merely a function of precise
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 10, 1998
        On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote:

        > Brian Wilson asks whether there might be any arguments against putting
        > together the following in "a hybrid hypothesis":

        > > (i) Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, (ii) Matthew and Luke copied from
        > > Q, and (iii) Luke copied from Matthew.
        >
        > This view has been maintained from time to time. The three most
        > prominent defenders of this kind of view are Simons (1880),
        > Morgenthaler (1971 etc.) and Gundry (various).

        Mark,

        Alfred Loisy also accepted this version of events, of course.

        > The main thing that I see wrong with it is that Luke's use of Matthew
        > makes the postulation of a Q unnecessary. Q is taken by most
        > theorists, after all, to be the logical consequence of the theory of
        > Matthew's and Luke's independent use of Mark.

        As other posters already remarked, this seems to be merely a function of
        precise definition. If we merely replace the label "Q" with "NMM
        (NonMarkanMatthew)", it seems like the basic problem of determining what
        this Q/NMM was remains unaffected.

        > > Putting the same question another way - how does an advocate of the 2DH
        > > know that Luke did not also copy from Matthew, and how does an advocate
        > > of the FH know that Matthew and Luke did not also interact with Q ?
        >
        > Advocates of the 2DH "know" that Luke did not also copy from Matthew
        > because as soon as one has admitted Lukan knowledge of Matthew, Q
        > becomes unnecessary and dispensable.

        But NMM looms large. So is this merely relabelling that goes on here?

        > It is therefore important to most Q theorists vigorously to defend the
        > independence of Matthew and Luke.

        I agree with Mark that, in this case, most Q theorists seem to be
        misguided.

        > Advocates of the Farrer Theory "know" that Matthew and Luke did not
        > also interact with Q

        But with NMM. Mt interacted with NMM for sure, and Lk probably, in my
        view.

        > because they have seen that Q is based on the assumption of the
        > independence of Matthew and Luke, with which they disagree.

        Such an assumption is clearly facile.

        > Advocates of the Morgenthaler-Gundry position would need to find
        > strong, fresh reasons for arguing for the existence of a Q document
        > alongside Luke's use of Matthew.

        Many good reasons are available. I like the argument from form. Sayings
        collections are a well attested literary form in classical antiquity. And
        this is where GTh comes in also. I think this would qualify as both
        "strong" and "fresh reason" for Q/NMM since GTh was unavailable at the
        time when the original Q hypothesis was formulated.

        Regards,

        Yuri.

        Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

        http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        Continuing the discussion of a hybrid hypothesis : MARK GOODACRE: Advocates of the Morgenthaler-Gundry position would need to find strong, fresh reasons for
        Message 3 of 18 , Oct 10, 1998
          Continuing the discussion of "a hybrid hypothesis":

          MARK GOODACRE: Advocates of the Morgenthaler-Gundry position would need to
          find strong, fresh reasons for arguing for the existence of a Q document
          alongside Luke's use of Matthew.

          LEONARD: I agree with Mark here, and am glad that he is working on this.

          But in response to the same statement of Mark, YURI wrote:

          << Many good reasons are available. I like the argument from form. Sayings
          collections are a well attested literary form in classical antiquity. And
          this is where GTh comes in also. I think this would qualify as both
          "strong" and "fresh reason" for Q/NMM since GTh was unavailable at the
          time when the original Q hypothesis was formulated.>>

          LEONARD: To which, the obvious response is: a posse ad esse non valet illatio.
          It never ceases to amaze me that the existence of a second century Gnostic
          document of a "sayings" type, the Gospel of Thomas, can be thought by anyone
          to constitute PROOF for the existence of Q in the first century. And the fact
          that Yuri, or anyone else for that matter, <likes> the argument from form
          doesn't, unfortunately, add anything at all to its validity from a logical
          point of view.

          Leonard Maluf
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 Maluflen@aol.com wrote: YURI wrote:
          Message 4 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
            On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:
            YURI wrote:

            <<Many good reasons are available. I like the argument from form. Sayings
            collections are a well attested literary form in classical antiquity. And
            this is where GTh comes in also. I think this would qualify as both
            "strong" and "fresh reason" for Q/NMM since GTh was unavailable at the
            time when the original Q hypothesis was formulated.>>

            > To which, the obvious response is: a posse ad esse non valet illatio.
            > It never ceases to amaze me that the existence of a second century
            > Gnostic document of a "sayings" type, the Gospel of Thomas,

            Leonard,

            How do you know it is "a second century Gnostic document"? On what do you
            base this?

            > can be thought by anyone to constitute PROOF for the existence of Q in
            > the first century. And the fact that Yuri, or anyone else for that
            > matter, <likes> the argument from form doesn't, unfortunately, add
            > anything at all to its validity from a logical point of view.

            So, on the assumption that substantially GTh dates to the first century,
            this would not be good support for Q?

            Regards,

            Yuri.

            Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

            http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

            The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
            equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
          • Jim West
            ... [snipped] ... [snipped- again] If I may just interject here on a conversation that is not mine- or as we say here in the South, I ain t got no dog in this
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
              At 02:15 PM 10/11/98 -0400, yuri wrote:
              >

              >This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
              >second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
              >adequate methodology.
              >

              [snipped]

              >These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
              >familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
              >Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
              >subject adequately.
              >
              >http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
              >
              >This should give you enough material to read for a few days, Leonard. It
              >would help your understanding of this problem if you consdered all this
              >evidence fully.

              [snipped- again]

              If I may just interject here on a conversation that is not mine- or as we
              say here in the South, "I ain't got no dog in this fight..."

              I think it is improper, dear Yuri, for you to presume, as you do here, that
              Leonard is unfamiliar with the material. It is dangerous to try to say what
              others know or do not know...

              I had the honor of meeting Leonard at the CBA meeting in Scranton and was
              completely amazed at his depth of knowledge and eloquent speech and manners.

              In short- I would not attempt to hazard such a thing as saying that he does
              not know a particular issue when it comes to Gospel research.


              Best to all.


              Jim
              +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
              Jim West, ThD
              Quartz Hill School of Theology
              jwest@...
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 98-10-11 10:16:34 EDT, yuku@globalserve.net writes:
              Message 6 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
                In a message dated 98-10-11 10:16:34 EDT, yuku@... writes:

                << Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is "a second century Gnostic document"?
                On what do you base this? >>

                Frankly, I have been careful not to waste much time on GTh, but what I have
                read of it certainly supports what I think is the common scholarly view that
                it dates from the second century and evidences a type of Gnostic thinking that
                belongs to that, as opposed to the preceding, century. It certainly seems to
                me that its authors knew and are adapting our canonical Gospel tradition in a
                way that suits their heretical purposes.

                << So, on the assumption that substantially GTh dates to the first century,
                this would not be good support for Q?>>

                It could I suppose be said that Q "substantially dates to the first century",
                if by that you mean it employs CONTENTS form first century sources (our
                canonical Gospels, at least). But, no, I don't see how that would advance the
                cause of Q, as classically understood. Please enlighten me.

                Leonard Maluf
              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                ... This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you ve already decided that GTh is second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of adequate
                Message 7 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
                  On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:
                  > In a message dated 98-10-11 10:16:34 EDT, yuku@... writes:
                  >
                  > << Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is "a second century Gnostic
                  > document"? On what do you base this? >>

                  > Frankly, I have been careful not to waste much time on GTh,

                  This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
                  second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
                  adequate methodology.

                  > but what I have read of it certainly supports what I think is the
                  > common scholarly view that it dates from the second century and
                  > evidences a type of Gnostic thinking that belongs to that, as opposed
                  > to the preceding, century. It certainly seems to me that its authors
                  > knew and are adapting our canonical Gospel tradition in a way that
                  > suits their heretical purposes.

                  These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
                  familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
                  Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
                  subject adequately.

                  http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html

                  This should give you enough material to read for a few days, Leonard. It
                  would help your understanding of this problem if you consdered all this
                  evidence fully.

                  > << So, on the assumption that substantially GTh dates to the first
                  > century, this would not be good support for Q?>>

                  > It could I suppose be said that Q "substantially dates to the first
                  > century",

                  But that's merely part of definition of Q.

                  > if by that you mean it employs CONTENTS form first century sources
                  > (our canonical Gospels, at least).

                  I use Q as it is commonly defined. You, on the other hand, have merely
                  asserted your own beliefs once again.

                  > But, no, I don't see how that would advance the cause of Q, as
                  > classically understood. Please enlighten me.

                  You seem even less familiar with this whole subject that I could even
                  imagine, Leonard. Obviously you had problems understanding the question
                  I've asked you. Here it is again, in a more extended form.

                  If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                  sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                  canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                  support for Q?

                  I hope the above is sufficiently clear now.

                  Regards,

                  Yuri.

                  Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                  http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                  The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                  equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  I suppose we could continue this discussion a bit for the edification of the list: YURI: Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is a second century Gnostic
                  Message 8 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
                    I suppose we could continue this discussion a bit for the edification of the
                    list:

                    YURI: Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is "a second century Gnostic
                    document"? On what do you base this?

                    LEONARD: Frankly, I have been careful not to waste much time on GTh,

                    YURI: This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
                    second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
                    adequate methodology.

                    LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a cursory look
                    at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document was of little
                    relevance to an understanding of the four Gospels, because so obviously late.
                    I would say the same, e.g., about the orthodox letters of Ignatius, etc. I
                    think this is good methodology, but I am of course open to EVIDENCE that the
                    Gospel of Thomas is really a first century work, or goes back to a first
                    century work other than our canonical Gospels. And that's why I asked you to
                    enlighten me (I didn't anticipate lunar illumination, whereby I am sent off to
                    another web-page for the information..).

                    (LEONARD: but what I have read of it certainly supports what I think is the
                    common scholarly view that it dates from the second century and
                    evidences a type of Gnostic thinking that belongs to that, as opposed
                    to the preceding, century. It certainly seems to me that its authors
                    knew and are adapting our canonical Gospel tradition in a way that
                    suits their heretical purposes.)

                    YURI: These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
                    familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
                    Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
                    subject adequately.

                    LEONARD: I don't see where "belief" enters in here (you may remove the word
                    "heretical" from the above if you wish). Most other second century documents,
                    even quite orthodox ones, I would evaluate as likewise but marginally relevant
                    for NT study for the same reason that I reject the relevance of GTh. And
                    might you do us the courtesy of summarizing Stevan Davies' arguments for me in
                    a few salient points?

                    snip

                    YURI: I use Q as it is commonly defined. You, on the other hand, have merely
                    asserted your own beliefs once again.

                    LEONARD: Could you give us your definition of Q please? Sounds like it must be
                    interesting. I thought Q was simply defined as the source of the Gospel
                    material that is common to Matt and Lk, but has no parallel in Mark --
                    material which, of course, needs no further explanation (hence no "Q") once it
                    is seen that Luke is fully familiar with the Gospel of Matt. And I thought,
                    too, that this is how "Q is commonly defined", as opposed to being my own
                    idiocyncratic definition.

                    (LEONARD: But, no, I don't see how that would advance the cause of Q, as
                    classically understood. Please enlighten me.)

                    YURI: You seem even less familiar with this whole subject that I could even
                    imagine, Leonard. Obviously you had problems understanding the question
                    I've asked you. Here it is again, in a more extended form.

                    If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                    sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                    canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                    support for Q?

                    LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing? And, no, even given
                    the literally preposterous assumption, I don't see how it provides good
                    support for the existence of Q (unless you are implying that GTh is itself Q,
                    or a close cousin), which still remains unnecessary once one correctly
                    understands the relationship of Luke's Gospel to Matthew's.

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                    On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Jim West wrote: ... I think it is improper, dear Jim, for you to presume, as you do here, to lecture me on how I should interpret the
                    Message 9 of 18 , Oct 12, 1998
                      On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Jim West wrote:

                      ...

                      > I think it is improper, dear Yuri, for you to presume, as you do here,
                      > that Leonard is unfamiliar with the material.

                      I think it is improper, dear Jim, for you to presume, as you do here, to
                      lecture me on how I should interpret the reply of Leonard.

                      ...

                      > In short- I would not attempt to hazard such a thing as saying that he
                      > does not know a particular issue when it comes to Gospel research.

                      My reply was based on what Leonard said. I'm standing by what I said
                      previously. If anything, Leonard's subsequent reply only added weight to
                      my previous estimate of his state of familiarity with this problem.

                      Best to all,

                      Yuri.

                      Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                      http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                    • Yuri Kuchinsky
                      On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 Maluflen@aol.com wrote: ... I assure you that you were wrong. ... If you are not yet familiar with such evidence, it is perfectly clear
                      Message 10 of 18 , Oct 12, 1998
                        On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

                        ...

                        > YURI: This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
                        > second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
                        > adequate methodology.

                        > LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a
                        > cursory look at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document
                        > was of little relevance to an understanding of the four Gospels,
                        > because so obviously late.

                        I assure you that you were wrong.

                        > I would say the same, e.g., about the orthodox letters of Ignatius,
                        > etc. I think this is good methodology, but I am of course open to
                        > EVIDENCE that the Gospel of Thomas is really a first century work, or
                        > goes back to a first century work other than our canonical Gospels.

                        If you are not yet familiar with such evidence, it is perfectly clear that
                        you still have a lot to learn about this problem. I've given you a good
                        lead on where to look to advance your knowledge in this area.

                        Since you seem to be a beginner in this area, I really don't know where to
                        begin to help you. I've been engaged in this debate for a long time
                        already. So how about this opening of _The Christology And Protology of
                        the Gospel of Thomas_ from our friend Steve Davies? (Published in Journal
                        of Biblical Literature Volume 111, Number 4, Winter 1992.)

                        [quote]

                        http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/jblprot.htm

                        A consensus is emerging in American scholarship that the Gospel of
                        Thomas is a text independent of the synoptics and that it was compiled
                        in the mid to late first century. [[J.H. Sieber maintains the position
                        that "there is very little redactional evidence, if any, for holding
                        that our Synoptic Gospels were the sources of Thomas' synoptic
                        sayings. In the great majority of sayings there is no such evidence at
                        all....As of the date of this article (1988) almost all those who are
                        currently at work on Thomas have come to hold that it represents an
                        independent tradition" ("The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament,"
                        in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings [ed. J. Goehring et al.;
                        Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990] 69, 70). C. Hedrick concludes: "I am
                        personally convinced that our present Coptic version of the Gospel of
                        Thomas was not derived from the synoptic Gospels. The evidence, in my
                        opinion, leads inevitably to that conclusion" ("Thomas and the
                        Synoptics: Aiming at a Consensus," SecCent 7/1 [1989-90] 56); cf. also
                        R. Cameron's arguments for Thomas's independence in Forum 2/2 [1986]
                        3-39). For a recent review of the discussion of Thomas's independence
                        and an extensive argument supporting Thomas's independence, see S.
                        Patterson, "The Gospel of Thomas Within the Development of Early
                        Christianity" (diss., Claremont, 1988). He concludes that "Thomas is
                        not linked to the synoptic gospels in any generative sort of way. The
                        material used by Thomas' author/editor did not come from the canonical
                        gospels, nor was its overall plan conceived along lines similar to
                        those which governed the formation of all four of the canonical
                        gospels. In this sense the Gospel of Thomas is to be considered
                        autonomous: it is to be understood in terms of its own reception and
                        treatment of the Jesus tradition, and the inner logic by which it
                        appropriates traditional material" (p. 147).

                        [end quote]

                        > And that's why I asked you to enlighten me (I didn't anticipate lunar
                        > illumination, whereby I am sent off to another web-page for the
                        > information..).

                        And that's why I gave you a good lead to the evidence that you say you
                        seek.

                        > YURI: These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
                        > familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
                        > Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
                        > subject adequately.

                        > LEONARD: I don't see where "belief" enters in here (you may remove the
                        > word "heretical" from the above if you wish).

                        So now you know where "belief" entered in there.

                        > Most other second century documents, even quite orthodox ones, I would
                        > evaluate as likewise but marginally relevant for NT study for the same
                        > reason that I reject the relevance of GTh.

                        Please note you have not yet outlined a single reason for lateness of GTh
                        beyond statements of belief.

                        > And might you do us the courtesy of summarizing Stevan Davies'
                        > arguments for me in a few salient points?

                        Done already. I still recommend you look up Steve's page, since it
                        provides a very thorough and very balanced review of all the evidence,
                        including the opposite viewpoint.

                        > YURI: I use Q as it is commonly defined. You, on the other hand, have merely
                        > asserted your own beliefs once again.
                        >
                        > LEONARD: Could you give us your definition of Q please?

                        Standard definition, I assure you. Q = Synoptic Sayings Source. First
                        century.

                        > YURI: You seem even less familiar with this whole subject that I could even
                        > imagine, Leonard. Obviously you had problems understanding the question
                        > I've asked you. Here it is again, in a more extended form.
                        >
                        > If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                        > sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                        > canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                        > support for Q?

                        > LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing?

                        Such a question, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with this area
                        of scholarship. Sorry.

                        > And, no, even given the literally preposterous assumption,

                        Such a view, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with this area of
                        scholarship.

                        > I don't see how it provides good support for the existence of Q

                        I'm sorry to hear this. Steve's page will give you a large bibliography of
                        books to read. You've missed on a lot of recent academic work in this
                        area, Leonard, but it's never too late to learn new things.

                        > (unless you are implying that GTh is itself Q,

                        Incorrect.

                        > or a close cousin),

                        Now you're getting closer to my meaning, finally.

                        > which still remains unnecessary once one correctly understands the
                        > relationship of Luke's Gospel to Matthew's.

                        Your assumption only. For myself, I freely accept some level of Lk's
                        familiarity with Mt. I don't think this represents any kind of an argument
                        against Q. Perhaps a very flimsy argument only.

                        Regards,

                        Yuri.

                        Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                        http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                        More quibbling about q. (LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a cursory look at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document
                        Message 11 of 18 , Oct 12, 1998
                          More quibbling about q.

                          (LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a
                          cursory look at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document
                          [GTh] was of little relevance to an understanding of the four Gospels,
                          because so obviously late.)

                          YURI: I assure you that you were wrong.

                          LEONARD: Your display of scholarship so far, Yuri, affords me less than full
                          comfort from your "assurance".

                          YURI: Since you seem to be a beginner in this area, I really don't know where
                          to
                          begin to help you.

                          LEONARD: Don't trouble yourself, Yuri. I have made the conscious and wise
                          decision to remain a beginner in this area, which doesn't appear to me to
                          deserve further attention or initiation. The only thing I would add to this is
                          that I am, of course, open to EVIDENCE that GTh is in fact something more than
                          it appears to be, namely, a tendentious, marginal, second-century (probably
                          late second-century) parody on Christian wisdom, using and abusing numerous
                          sayings of Jesus that were the common property of second-century Christians as
                          mediated, ultimately, through the Church's canonical gospels.

                          YURI: I've been engaged in this debate for a long time already. So how about
                          this opening of _The Christology And Protology of the Gospel of Thomas_ from
                          our friend Steve Davies? (Published in Journal of Biblical Literature Volume
                          111, Number 4, Winter 1992.)

                          LEONARD: Thanks, Yuri, for this reference. I will check it out. Looks
                          interesting.


                          YURI: [quote] A consensus is emerging in American scholarship that the Gospel
                          of
                          Thomas is a text independent of the synoptics and that it was compiled
                          in the mid to late first century.

                          LEONARD: I suppose this shouldn't amaze me, but it does. After all, a majority
                          of scholars also hold Markan priority.

                          (snip)

                          YURI: (Continuation of quote) "As of the date of this article (1988) almost
                          all those who are currently at work on Thomas have come to hold that it
                          represents an
                          independent tradition"

                          LEONARD: This is the problem I think. "almost all those who are currently at
                          work on Thomas have come to hold...". I wickedly suspect that it is an
                          original interest in Thomas, and what motivates that interest, that makes
                          precisely these scholars (those currently at work on Thomas) predisposed to
                          the conclusions they come to. I doubt that these scholars will be able to
                          persuade a majority of scholars in the NT field of their conclusions by valid
                          argumentation (i.e., other than by pointing to a consensus among themselves!)
                          This is a very special class of scholars to begin with, the kind who would die
                          (God bless them!) rather than abandon q, even if it is demonstrated that Lk
                          knew Matt and that therefore the q hypothesis is logically superfluous.

                          YURI: quoting S. Patterson, "The Gospel of Thomas Within the Development of
                          Early Christianity" (diss., Claremont, 1988): "Thomas is not linked to the
                          synoptic gospels in any generative sort of way. The material used by Thomas'
                          author/editor did not come from the canonical gospels,

                          LEONARD: thus far, simply an assertion -- granted, the conclusion of his work,
                          which I would have to read.

                          YURI: (continuing the quote): nor was its overall plan conceived along lines
                          similar to those which governed the formation of all four of the canonical
                          gospels.

                          LEONARD: Certainly true, and also evident at a glance (i.e., not requiring
                          extensive study of GTh).

                          QUOTE CONTINUED: In this sense the Gospel of Thomas is to be considered
                          autonomous...

                          LEONARD: not quite a logical inference from the above. The logical inference
                          from the fact that "its overall plan [is not] conceived along lines similar to
                          those which governed the formation of all four of the canonical gospels" is
                          that it is an ORIGINAL work, not that it is AUTONOMOUS, in the sense of
                          independent of the canonical gospel tradition. It simply has a new literary
                          form, presumably imposed on older materials, some of which seem to be our
                          canonical gospels, creatively and/or perversely quarried and manipulated.

                          YURI: Please note you have not yet outlined a single reason for lateness of
                          GTh
                          beyond statements of belief.

                          LEONARD: I have in fact made no statements of belief. Furthermore, what is
                          needed is reasons for the earliness of a document for which no confirmatory
                          evidence of earliness exists. Both manuscripts and external references to the
                          Gospel of Thomas place its original composition at the very earliest in the
                          second century, to my knowledge. Therefore, I do not (yet) need to PROVE that
                          it is late, by NT standards.

                          YURI: definition of q: Standard definition, I assure you. Q = Synoptic Sayings
                          Source. First century.

                          LEONARD: I see. The definition of Q no longer requires a reference to material
                          common to Matt and Lk. Interesting, as I thought it would be.

                          (YURI: If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                          sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                          canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                          support for Q?

                          LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing?)

                          YURI: Such a question, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with this
                          area
                          of scholarship. Sorry.

                          LEONARD: Are you sure you really want to stand by the implication of this
                          response, namely, that one should ASSUME that most of the sayings in the GTh
                          date to the first century? This would prove a point I made above about GTh
                          scholarship that some may otherwise have thought unkind. I confidently repeat
                          my challenge here: why should anyone ASSUME such a thing?

                          Leonard Maluf
                        • Jeff Peterson
                          ... One historiographic difference that Q makes (on the standard reconstructions lacking Q 22:64) relates to whether there were first- or second-generation
                          Message 12 of 18 , Oct 13, 1998
                            At 9:03 PM 10/8/98, Stevan Davies wrote:
                            >On crosstalk we've managed to solve this terminological problem by
                            >speaking of NMM as material in Mt that is not in Mark and leaving
                            >Q to be material in Mt and Lk that is not in Mark. (NonMarkanMatthew)
                            >
                            >Mark G is entirely right that if Mt ---> Lk was known to be a fact
                            >nobody would think that Lk also was using Q. But then "where did
                            >NMM come from?" would become a very significant question.
                            >I've argued that NMM scholarship would end up drawing most of
                            >the same conclusions as Q scholarship does vis a vis early
                            >Christianity.

                            One historiographic difference that Q makes (on the standard
                            reconstructions lacking Q 22:64) relates to whether there were first- or
                            second-generation Christian communities in which Jesus' passion and
                            resurrection were not remembered or at least not central. Since
                            _Trajectories Through Early Christianity_, Q has been claimed as
                            documenting this; take away a unitary Q that defines the contours of its
                            community's christology, and NMM consists of anecdotes gathered from
                            indeterminate sources documenting the career of the crucified and risen
                            Messiah.

                            Best wishes,

                            Jeff

                            Jeffrey Peterson
                            Institute for Christian Studies
                            Austin, Texas, USA
                          • Yuri Kuchinsky
                            ... As you wish, Leonard. ... Based on your self-admitted beginner s perception? ... But how can you both wish to remain a beginner, and yet be open to new
                            Message 13 of 18 , Oct 14, 1998
                              On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

                              > YURI: Since you seem to be a beginner in this area, I really don't
                              > know where to begin to help you.
                              >
                              > LEONARD: Don't trouble yourself, Yuri. I have made the conscious and
                              > wise decision to remain a beginner in this area,

                              As you wish, Leonard.

                              > which doesn't appear to me to deserve further attention or initiation.

                              Based on your self-admitted beginner's perception?

                              > The only thing I would add to this is that I am, of course, open to
                              > EVIDENCE that GTh is in fact something more than it appears to be,

                              But how can you both wish to remain a beginner, and yet be open to new
                              evidence? I see a contradiction here, Leonard.

                              Of course I've already given you some suggested reading tips, on the
                              chance that you may become dissatisfied with your status of a beginner at
                              some point in the future.

                              > namely, a tendentious, marginal, second-century (probably late
                              > second-century) parody on Christian wisdom, using and abusing numerous
                              > sayings of Jesus that were the common property of second-century
                              > Christians as mediated, ultimately, through the Church's canonical
                              > gospels.

                              These are merely statements of faith, Leonard. May I remind you that this
                              is a serious academic discussion list where we normally look at valid
                              evidence, and present reasoned arguments?

                              ...

                              > LEONARD: This is the problem I think. "almost all those who are
                              > currently at work on Thomas have come to hold...". I wickedly suspect
                              > that it is an original interest in Thomas, and what motivates that
                              > interest, that makes precisely these scholars (those currently at work
                              > on Thomas) predisposed to the conclusions they come to.

                              These are ad hominem comments, Leonard. They are speculations as to
                              possible hidden motives of various researchers. Hardly a reasoned and
                              balanced argument.

                              ...

                              > YURI: Please note you have not yet outlined a single reason for
                              > lateness of GTh beyond statements of belief.
                              >
                              > LEONARD: I have in fact made no statements of belief.

                              I'm sorry to disagree.

                              > Furthermore, what is needed is reasons for the earliness of a document
                              > for which no confirmatory evidence of earliness exists.

                              Incorrect. For a good summary of various historical attestations of GTh,
                              which are excellent, please consult H. Koester, ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS.

                              > Both manuscripts and external references to the Gospel of Thomas place
                              > its original composition at the very earliest in the second century,
                              > to my knowledge.

                              Your knowledge is imperfect in this area, Leonard, I'm sorry to say.

                              ...

                              > LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing?)
                              >
                              > YURI: Such a question, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with
                              > this area of scholarship. Sorry.
                              >
                              > LEONARD: Are you sure you really want to stand by the implication of
                              > this response,

                              Of course, Leonard.

                              > namely, that one should ASSUME that most of the sayings in the GTh
                              > date to the first century?

                              Sigh... Again, you misunderstand.

                              > This would prove a point I made above about GTh scholarship that some
                              > may otherwise have thought unkind. I confidently repeat my challenge
                              > here: why should anyone ASSUME such a thing?

                              Oh, well, let's begin from the beginning. I will try to explain it to
                              you very slowly once again.

                              This is what I said in my last post,

                              "If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                              sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                              canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                              support for Q?"

                              This question was meant to establish the ground rules in this debate and
                              no more. This question was meant to clarify your attitude as to what may
                              constitute "GTh providing good support for Q" according to you. In other
                              words, under what conditions, according to you, may GTh be seen as
                              providing good support for Q?

                              What I'm trying to establish here is that _if_ GTh is found to date
                              substantially to the first century, i.e. _if_ it is found that it consists
                              predominantly of precanonical material (which is my own view, and also the
                              view of many respected scholars who actually investigated this problem),
                              can GTh _in this case_ be seen as providing good support for Q?

                              Can I explain it any clearer for you, Leonard? If you still don't
                              understand, please don't hesitate to get back to me.

                              Yuri.

                              Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                              http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.